Same logic
-
For anyone who cares this is horrible logic that only superficially makes a point. Two things are true here... being rich is an advantage and the sex you were born can be an advantage when you compete against one of the sexes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There's no research that proves AGAB has anything to do with athletic advantages
-
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
They didn’t specify poverty, you can be malnourished without being in poverty. Especially on a typical American diet.
-
Tbh, top-level sports is unfair to the end. To get into it you need to have a combination of money and perfect genetics next to your training.
99+% of people could never compete in a given sport on top-level, no matter how much they train, because they just don't have the perfect body for the sport.
One big genetic marker that is necessary to compete in most top sports is being male.
So to make women's sports at all possible, that protected category of women's sports was created. As a protected category, there needs to be some kind of cut-off, and that cut-off is arbitrary and sucks. If you are 10 grams overweight in a weight limited category, your are also out. (Though it's easier to do something against 10g than against genetics and hormones, but you get my point.)
We need to stop viewing women's sports as some kind of "natural category", but as the protected category it is.
One big genetic marker that is necessary to compete in most top sports is being male.
Pump the brakes, because you are making a lot of assumptions that make sports worse for women. Including:
- that male and female are perfectly distinct categories that everyone fits into
- that everyone can be categorized into male or female based on their gender history or a ‘sex test’
- that everyone put in the male category has an advantage over everyone in the female category
- that everyone sorted as female needs to be protected from intrusion of everyone sorted as male
- that hormones have no effect on performance of people in either category
These aren’t based in anything but anxieties and hearsay, and trying to enforce them will inherently affect far more cis women than trans women, because cis women outnumber trans women by an absolute fuckton.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I am not literate enough to understand what the study is saying so I am ready for all ELI5 but I am a 20 year old Cis guy, 183cm and 85kgs. Say I start taking estrogen for 5 years. I will still retain my height and weight, maybe the muscle density would decrease but my bone density wouldn't? isn't there a bone and muscle density difference between male and female, and I have heard athletes say that sometimes strength boils down to the ligaments and tendons rather than muscles. I'd still say I'd be stronger than 90%+ of women when now I am sure I am stronger than 95%+, without any extreme fitness training.
Once again I am only asking because I don't know and I am not transphobe or someone with rigid opinions
-
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
You mean the Olympics? It used to exclude professional athletes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and_professionalism
-
It's a bad faith argument that can only be accepted/made by the dishonest who desperately want it to be true and kind-hearted fools. But the demographics of Lemmy mean OP could only be praised and upvoted.
I too also think that a person with uterus wouldn't be able to compete with a person with scrotum, especially if the transition happened after puberty, men by default are stronger than women, if you include training the gap only widens if you factor in muscle decomposition from estrogen, it would still be unfair
-
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
I'm an American, so yes I am privileged and yes that is poverty food in the United States.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I'm still up for that random internet user's idea of an olympics with randomly selected people from each country, to give a fair representation of its people. It would be so fun to watch, or even to participate!
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I'm under opinion that we take sports wayyyy to seriously. It's just entertainment and should be treated as such. It's absolutely bonkers that we let shit like running slightly fast and jumping slightly high become so important - isn't that just crazy?
-
You mean the Olympics? It used to exclude professional athletes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and_professionalism
The problem with that is state sponsored athletes counted as amateur even though they were doing it for a living just as much as the pros. Plus, in order to compete, you basically had to beg for a sponsor in order to be able to both train enough and afford to eat or have a home.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
Some people are born more capable of learning in school, creating an unfair disadvantage, therefore, we should ban smart kids from school.
-
The argument isn't about kids of rich parents not having to work for a position in F1 or other sports, but about even getting the chance to be there.
If you are poor, there's no way to ever get into F1, even if you have perfect natural talent. You just won't be able to afford the training.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Here is the comment I was replying to which was calling out the natural talent portion stating its only about their money and training to get in and max just isnt the one to try and prove that with:
Try watching F1 and hearing "natural talent" in the context of men who had done 30,000 hours of karting before they could walk. Max Verstappen was built from the ground up to be a racer. I don't think these people are bad, but they definitely have it easy going up against one of the smallest playing fields in all of sports.
They were specifically calling out max stating he doesnt have natural talent besides his parents money. Max is not a great example from the grid for that, he won the natural talent lottery and rich parents lottery that allowed him the ability to compete and use that natural talent. Almost every single person on the grid has had the same training and time to practice as max has had yet no one really can drive like he can.
Like the last portion of my comment stated f1 is obviously a rich man's sport, there isnt any denying that but you can have an easier time demonstrating that by calling out anyone but the generational talent that made it in, like idk cough cough lance stroll. If money wasnt a factor you would get more talent like max in the sport but we can acknowledge that max has the talent to back his position even if in that sport money is what will be the ultimate deciding factor on whether you can even sit at the table to prove it.
-
Some people are born more capable of learning in school, creating an unfair disadvantage, therefore, we should ban smart kids from school.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yeah if a kid's too smart you gotta hit em with a brick a few times. If you look at history it would have prevented a few genocides. I read about in history clas- *thunk*
-
I am not literate enough to understand what the study is saying so I am ready for all ELI5 but I am a 20 year old Cis guy, 183cm and 85kgs. Say I start taking estrogen for 5 years. I will still retain my height and weight, maybe the muscle density would decrease but my bone density wouldn't? isn't there a bone and muscle density difference between male and female, and I have heard athletes say that sometimes strength boils down to the ligaments and tendons rather than muscles. I'd still say I'd be stronger than 90%+ of women when now I am sure I am stronger than 95%+, without any extreme fitness training.
Once again I am only asking because I don't know and I am not transphobe or someone with rigid opinions
I will still retain my height and weight
Why do you assume that both of those things are true? Trans people taking estrogen don’t typically shrink drastically, but a small amount of height loss (less than 1”) isn’t unheard of, along with a slight decrease in shoe size. The age you start and your own genetics also play a role, of course.
For weight, it’s pretty uncontroversial that for people taking estrogen, you will lose some muscle mass and have to work harder to build/maintain more.
This also assumes that your bone density is identical to a pre-HRT trans woman’s bone density, when actually trans women tend to have lower bone density than cis men prior to HRT.
TL;DR: hormones and personal/medical history play a much larger role in sexual characteristic expression than whether you have XX or XY genes.
-
I too also think that a person with uterus wouldn't be able to compete with a person with scrotum, especially if the transition happened after puberty, men by default are stronger than women, if you include training the gap only widens if you factor in muscle decomposition from estrogen, it would still be unfair
It's not even a "think" kinda thing, it's just evident to the naked eye. This is why we separated sports by sex to begin with! But only childish folks think this matters at all. In which way would me, ceteris paribus, being stronger and faster than the average woman make me a "better human being"? I think cultures that glorify force, the self and violent means (imperliastic ones, for example...) instead of righteousness, selflessness and cooperation, and are overall ideologically confused and suffer some form of arrested development, put too much stock on physicality and competitiveness in general.
-
There's no research that proves AGAB has anything to do with athletic advantages
I am quite sure that sometimes an untrained man is more strong/ agile than a trained women(not talking about stereotypical untrained fat chungus, just meant normal athletic looking dude who is just fit and doesn't do nothing special)
Not a misogynist but facts are facts men are stronger than women
-
Depends on the sport in all honestly, some womans sports are more fun to watch than men's. I can't think of an example of hand though.
football
-
I'm still up for that random internet user's idea of an olympics with randomly selected people from each country, to give a fair representation of its people. It would be so fun to watch, or even to participate!
I don't they create a third one? Before you screem with me Im not even into sports so I don't care! lol
-
Here is the comment I was replying to which was calling out the natural talent portion stating its only about their money and training to get in and max just isnt the one to try and prove that with:
Try watching F1 and hearing "natural talent" in the context of men who had done 30,000 hours of karting before they could walk. Max Verstappen was built from the ground up to be a racer. I don't think these people are bad, but they definitely have it easy going up against one of the smallest playing fields in all of sports.
They were specifically calling out max stating he doesnt have natural talent besides his parents money. Max is not a great example from the grid for that, he won the natural talent lottery and rich parents lottery that allowed him the ability to compete and use that natural talent. Almost every single person on the grid has had the same training and time to practice as max has had yet no one really can drive like he can.
Like the last portion of my comment stated f1 is obviously a rich man's sport, there isnt any denying that but you can have an easier time demonstrating that by calling out anyone but the generational talent that made it in, like idk cough cough lance stroll. If money wasnt a factor you would get more talent like max in the sport but we can acknowledge that max has the talent to back his position even if in that sport money is what will be the ultimate deciding factor on whether you can even sit at the table to prove it.
I think Lance Stroll is a bad example for the point at hand. In most cases you need talent plus a boatload of cash to compete at high level in any sports.
F1 is a special kind of circus, since there it's primarily teams competing, not the drivers. If you have enough money to buy a team you can put a blind dog into the driver's seat and nobody can object. That's Lance Stroll or Nikita Mazepin. For F1 you really don't need to have talent if you have enough cash.
In most other sports you need both. No matter how much money you have, if you are competing in a sport with leagues and world leader boards / world ranking, having money without talent means you will not make it to top level because the leader board sorts you away. That's automatic mechanisms that can't be just circumvented using money.
Max Verstappen is more one of the classic examples of what OOP was talking about. He's got talent, no discussion about that. But if he didn't have money, he never would have had the chance to get where he is. There are most likely hundreds of people who have the same potential talent as Verstappen, but who don't have the money, thus never had the chance to get the training and the attention and so on.
In most sports you need Money + Talent. If you lack one, you are gone.
-
Kids who grow up in homes with proper nutrition run faster, jump higher, and hit harder. Their bones have never been sapped of calcium, their teeth never threatened with scurvy. It's not fair or safe to have them compete with malnourished kids who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners.
Is it? Idn man, the somalians own the marathons and not all of them are rich, some came from dificult backgrounds and started running in the sand and dirt
